Chapter VIII: Front Matter (8)

GERMANIUM (symbol Ge, atomic weight 72.5); one of the metallic elements included in the same natural family as carbon, silicon, tin and lead. It was discovered in 1886 by C. Winkler in argyrodite, a mineral found at Freiberg in Saxony. On examination of the metal and its salts it was shown to be identical with the hypothetical element _ekasilicon_, whose properties had been predicted by D. Mendeleeff many years previously. The element is of extremely rare occurrence, being met with only in argyrodite and, to a very small extent, in euxenite. It may be obtained from argyrodite by heating the mineral in a current of hydrogen; or by heating the dioxide to redness with carbon. It forms grey coloured octahedra of specific gravity 5.496 at 20 deg. C., melting at 900 deg. C.; it burns at a red heat, is insoluble in hydrochloric acid, but dissolves in _aqua regia_, and is also soluble in molten alkalis. Two oxides of germanium are known, the _dioxide_, GeO2, being obtained by roasting the sulphide and treatment with nitric acid. It is a white powder, very slightly soluble in water, and possesses acid properties. By heating with a small quantity of magnesium it is converted into _germanious oxide_, GeO. By heating the metal with chlorine, _germanic chloride_, GeCl4, is obtained as a colourless fuming liquid boiling at 86-87 deg. C., it is decomposed by water forming a hydrated germanium dioxide. _Germanium dichloride_, GeCl2, and _germanium chloroform_, GeHCl3, have also been described.

Germanium compounds on fusion with alkaline carbonates and sulphur form salts known as _thiogermanates_. If excess of a mineral acid be added to a solution of an alkaline thiogermanate a white precipitate of _germanium disulphide_, GeS2, is obtained. It can also be obtained by passing sulphuretted hydrogen through a solution of the dioxide in hydrochloric acid. It is appreciably soluble in water, and also in solutions of the caustic alkalis and alkaline sulphides. By heating the disulphide in a current of hydrogen, _germanious sulphide_, GeS, is formed. It sublimes in thin plates of a dark colour and metallic lustre, and is soluble in solutions of the caustic alkalis. Alkyl compounds of germanium such as _germanium tetra-ethyl_, Ge(C2H5)4, a liquid boiling at 160 deg. C., have been obtained. The germanium salts are most readily recognized by the white precipitate of the disulphide, formed in acid solutions, on passing sulphuretted hydrogen. The atomic weight of the element was determined by C. Winkler by analysis of the pure chloride GeCl4, the value obtained being 72.32, whilst Lecoq de Boisbaudran (_Comptes rendus_, 1886, 103, 452), by a comparison of the lines in the spark spectrum of the element, deduced the value 72.3.

GERMAN LANGUAGE. Together with English and Frisian, the German language forms part of the West Germanic group of languages. To this group belongs also Langobardian, a dialect which died out in the 9th or 10th century, while Burgundian, traces of which are not met with later than the 5th century, is usually classed with the East Germanic group. Both these tongues were at an early stage crushed out by Romance dialects, a fate which also overtook the idiom of the Western Franks, who, in the so-called _Strassburg Oaths_[1] of 842, use the Romance tongue, and are addressed in that tongue by Louis the German.

Leaving English and Frisian aside, we understand by _Deutsche_ _Sprache_ the language of those West Germanic tribes, who, at their earliest appearance in history, spoke a Germanic tongue, and still speak it at the present day. The chief of these tribes are: the Saxons, the Franks (but with the restriction noted above), the Chatti (Hessians), Thuringians, Alemannians and Bavarians. This definition naturally includes the languages spoken in the Low Countries, Flemish and Dutch, which are offsprings of the Low Franconian dialect, mixed with Frisian and Saxon elements; but, as the literary development of these languages has been in its later stages entirely independent of that of the German language, they are excluded from the present survey.

The German language, which is spoken by about seventy-one millions, and consequently occupies in this respect the third place among European languages, borders, in the west and south, on Romance languages (French, Italian), and also to some extent on Slavonic. On Italian and Slovenian territory there are several German-speaking "islands," notably the Sette and Tredici Communi, east and north-east of the Lake of Garda, and the "Gottschee Landchen" to the south of Laibach. The former of these is, however, on the point of dying out. Neighbours on the east, where the boundary line runs by no means as straight as on the west or south, are the Magyars and again Slavonic races. Here, too, there are numerous "islands" on Hungarian and Slavonic territory. Danes and Frisians join hands with the Germans in the north.[2]

In the west and south the German language has, compared with its status in earlier periods, undoubtedly lost ground, having been encroached upon by Romance tongues. This is the case in French Flanders, in Alsace and Lorraine, at any rate before the war of 1870, in the valleys south of Monte Rosa and in southern Tirol; in Styria and Carinthia the encroachment is less marked, but quite perceptible. On the east, on the other hand, German steadily spread from the days of Charles the Great down to recent times, when it has again lost considerable ground in Bohemia, Moravia and Livonia. At the time of Charles the Great the eastern frontier extended very little beyond the lower Elbe, following this river beyond Magdeburg, whence it passed over to the Saale, the Bohemian forest and the river Enns (cf. the map in F. Dahn, _Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen Volker_, vol. iii.). Partly as a result of victories gained by the Germans over the Avars and Slavs, partly owing to peaceful colonization, the eastern boundary was pushed forward in subsequent centuries; Bohemia was in this way won for the German tongue by German colonists in the 13th century, Silesia even a little earlier; in Livonia German gained the upper hand during the 13th century, while about the same time the country of the Prussians was conquered and colonized by the knights of the Teutonic order. The dialect which these colonists and knights introduced bore the Middle German character; and this, in various modifications, combined with Low German and even Dutch elements, formed the German spoken in these newly-won territories. In the north (Schleswig), where at the time of Charles the Great the river Eider formed the linguistic boundary, German has gained and is still gaining on Danish.

Before considering the development of the language spoken within these boundaries, a word of explanation is perhaps necessary with regard to the word _deutsch_. As applied to the language, _deutsch_ first appears in the Latin form _theotiscus_, _lingua theotisca_, _teutisca_, in certain Latin writings of the 8th and 9th centuries, whereas the original Old High German word _thiudisc_, _tiutisc_ (from _thiot_, _diot_, "people," and the suffix _-isc_) signified only "appertaining to the people," "in the manner of the people." Cf. also Gothic _[thorn]iudisko_ as a translation of [Greek: ethnikos] (Gal. ii. 14). It, therefore, seems probable that if the application of the word to the language (_lingua theotisca_) was not exactly an invention of Latin authors of German nationality, its use in this sense was at least encouraged by them in order to distinguish their own vernacular (_lingua vulgaris_) from Latin as well as from the _lingua romana_.[3]

In the 8th and 9th centuries German or "Deutsch" first appears as a written language in the dialects of Old High German and Old Low German. Of an "Urdeutsch" or primitive German, i.e. the common language from which these sharply distinguished dialects of the earliest historical period must have developed, we have no record; we can only infer its character--and it was itself certainly not free from dialectic variations--by a study of the above-named and other Germanic dialects. It is usual to divide the history of the German language from this earliest period, when it appears only in the form of proper names and isolated words as glosses to a Latin text, down to the present day, into three great sections: (1) Old High German (_Althochdeutsch_) and Old Low German (Old Saxon; _Altniederdeutsch_, _Altsachsisch_); (2) Middle High German (_Mittelhochdeutsch_) and Middle Low German (Mittelniederdeutsch); and (3) Modern High German and Modern Low German (_Neuhochdeutsch_ and _Neuniederdeutsch_). It is more difficult to determine the duration of the different periods, for it is obvious that the transition from one stage of a language to another takes place slowly and gradually.

The first or Old High German period is commonly regarded as extending to about the year 1100. The principal characteristic of the change from Old High German to Middle High German is the weakening of the unaccented vowels in final syllables (cf. O.H.G. _taga_, _gesti_, _geban_, _gabum_ and M.H.G. _tage_, _geste_, _geben_, _gaben_). But it must be remembered that this process began tentatively as early as the 10th century in Low German, and also that long, unaccented vowels are preserved in the Alemannic dialect as late as the 14th century and even later. Opinion is more at variance with regard to the division between the second and third periods. Some would date Modern High German from the time of Luther, that is to say, from about 1500. But it must be noted that certain characteristics attributed to the Modern German vowel system, such as lengthening of Middle High German short vowels, the change from Middle High German _i_, _u_, _iu_ to Modern High German _ei_, _au_, _eu_ (_ou_), of Middle High German _ie_, _uo_, _ue_ to Modern High German _i_, _u_, _u_, made their appearance long before 1500. Taking this fact into consideration, others distinguish a period of classical Middle High German extending to about 1250, and a period of transition (sometimes called _Fruhneuhochdeutsch_, or Early Modern High German) from 1250 to 1650. The principal characteristics of Modern High German would then consist in a greater stability of the grammatical and syntactical rules, due to the efforts of earlier grammarians, such as Schottelius, Gottsched and others, and the substitution of a single vowel sound for the varying vowels of the singular and plural of the preterite of strong verbs (cf. Middle High German _schreib_, _schriben_, and Modern High German _schrieb_, _schrieben_, &c.). The much debated question of the origins of Modern High German has been recently reopened by O. Behaghel (_Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, l.c._ 661), who hopes that a more satisfactory solution may be arrived at by the study of certain syntactical peculiarities to be seen in the dialects of more recent periods.

As the middle ages did not produce a German _Schriftsprache_ or literary language in the modern sense of the word, which--as is undoubtedly the case in Modern German--might have influenced the spoken language (_Umgangssprache_), the history of the language in its earlier stages is a history of different dialects. These dialects will, therefore, claim our attention at some length.

It may be assumed that the languages of the different West Germanic tribes enumerated above were, before the appearance of the tribes in history, distinguished by many dialectic variations; this was certainly the case immediately after the Migrations, when the various races began to settle down. But these differences, consisting presumably in matters of phonology and vocabulary, were nowhere so pronounced as to exclude a mutual understanding of individuals belonging to different tribes. One might compare the case of the Poles and Czechs of the present day. During the 6th century, however, a phonological process set in, which ultimately resulted in the separation of Germany into two great linguistic divisions, south and north, or, as the languages are called, High and Low German. This fundamental change, which is known as the second or High German Soundshifting (_Lautverschiebung_), spread northward from the mountainous districts in the south, and, whatever its cause may have been,[4] left behind it clear and easily recognizable effects on the Germanic voiced stop _d_, which became changed to _t_, and more especially on the voiceless stops _t_, _p_ and _k_. Dialects which have shifted initial _t_ and _tt_ in the middle of a word to the affricate _tz_ (written _z_, _tz_) and _p_ and _k_ in corresponding positions to the affricates _pf_ and _k[chi]_ (written _ch_), further, _t_, _p_ and _k_ in the middle of words between vowels, to the double spirant _zz_ (now written _ss_, _sz_), _ff_, _hh_ (written _ch_), are called High German; those in which these changes have not taken place form the Low German group, this group agreeing in this respect with English and Frisian.

Of these sound changes, that of _t_ to _tz_ and _zz_ (_ss_) is the most universal, extending over the whole region in which shifting occurs; that of _k_ to _k[chi]_ (_ch_), the most restricted, being only found in Old Bavarian, and in the Swiss pronunciation, e.g. in _chind_. The remaining dialects occupy positions between the two extremes of complete shifting and the absence of shifting. Some Franconian dialects, for instance, leave _p_ unchanged under certain conditions, and in one dialect at least, Middle Franconian, _t_ has remained after vowels in certain pronominal forms (_dat_, _wat_, _allet_, &c.). On this ground a subdivision has been made in the High German dialects into (a) an Upper German (_Oberdeutsch_) and (b) a Middle German (_Mitteldeutsch_) group; and this subdivision practically holds good for all periods of the language, although in Old High German times the Middle German group is only represented, as far as the written language is concerned, by Franconian dialects.

As the scientific study of the German language advanced there arose a keen revival of interest--and that not merely on the part of scholars--in the dialects which were so long held in contempt as a mere corruption of the _Schriftsprache_.[5] We are still in the midst of a movement which, under the guidance of scholars, has, during the last three decades, bestowed great care on many of the existing dialects; phonological questions have received most attention, but problems of syntax have also not been neglected. Monumental works like Wenker's _Sprachatlas des deutschen Reiches_ and dialect dictionaries are either in course of publication or preparing;[6] while the difficult questions concerned with defining the boundaries of the various dialects and explaining the reasons for them form the subject of many monographs.[7]

Beginning in the north we shall now pass briefly in review the dialects spoken throughout the German-speaking area.

A. THE LOW GERMAN DIALECTS

The Low German dialects, as we have seen, stand nearest to the English
and Frisian languages, owing to the total absence of the consonantal
shifting which characterizes High German, as well as to other
peculiarities of sounds and inflections, e.g. the loss of the nasals
_m_ and _n_ before the spirants _f_, _s_ and _p_. Cf. Old Saxon _fif_
(five), _us_ (us), _kup_ (cf. uncouth). The boundary-line between Low
and High German, the so-called _Benrather Linie_, may roughly be
indicated by the following place-names, on the understanding, however,
that the Ripuarian dialect (see below) is to be classed with High
German: Montjoie (French border-town), Eupen, Aachen, Benrath,
Dusseldorf, north of Siegen, Cassel, Heiligenstadt, Harzgerode, to the
Elbe south of Magdeburg; this river forms the boundary as far as
Wittenberg, whence the line passes to Lubben on the Spree, Furstenwald
on the Oder and Birnbaum near the river Warthe. Beyond this point the
Low Germans have Slavs as their neighbours. Compared with the
conditions in the 13th century, it appears that Low German has lost
ground; down to the 14th and 15th centuries several towns, such as
Mansfeld, Eisleben, Merseburg, Halle, Dessau and Wittenberg, spoke Low
German.

Low German falls into two divisions, a western division, namely, Low
Franconian, the parent, as we have already said, of Flemish and Dutch,
and an eastern division, Low Saxon (_Plattdeutsch_, or, as it is often
simply called, Low German). The chief characteristic of the division
is to be sought in the ending of the first and third person plural of
the present indicative of verbs, this being in the former case _-en_,
in the latter _-et_. Inasmuch as the south-eastern part of Low
Franconian--inclusive of Gelderland and Cleves--shifts final _k_ to
_ch_ (e.g. _ich_, _mich_, _auch_, _-lich_), it must obviously be
separated from the rest, and in this respect be grouped with High
German. Low Saxon is usually divided into Westphalian (to the west of
the Weser) and Low Saxon proper, between Weser and Elbe. The
south-eastern part of the latter has the verbal ending -en and further
shows the peculiarity that the personal pronoun has the same form in
the dative and accusative (_mik_, _dick_), whereas the remainder, as
well as the Westphalian, has _mi_, _di_ in the dative, and _mi_, _di_
or _mik_, _dik_ in the accusative. To these Low German dialects must
also be added those spoken east of the Elbe on what was originally
Slavonic territory; they have the ending _-en_ in the first and third
person plural of verbs.[8]

B. THE HIGH GERMAN DIALECTS

1. _The Middle German Group._--This group, which comprises the
dialects of the Middle Rhine, of Hesse, Thuringia, Upper Saxony
(Meissen), Silesia and East Prussia to the east of the lower Vistula
between Bischofswerder, Marienburg, Elbing, Wormditt and Wartenberg--a
district originally colonized from Silesia--may be most conveniently
divided into an East and a West Middle German group. A common
characteristic of all these dialects is the diminutive suffix _-chen_,
as compared with the Low German form _-ken_ and the Upper German
_-lein_ (O.H.G. _lin_). East Middle German consists of Silesian, Upper
Saxon and Thuringian,[9] together with the linguistic colony in East
Prussia. While these dialects have shifted initial Germanic _p_ to
_ph_, or even to _f_ (_fert_ = _Pferd_), the West Middle German
dialects (roughly speaking to the west of the watershed of Werra and
Fulda) have retained it. If, following a convincing article in the
_Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum_ (37, 288 ff.) by F. Wrede, we
class East and South Franconian--both together may be called High
Franconian--with the Upper German dialects, there only remain in the
West Middle German group:[10] (a) Middle Franconian and (b) Rhenish
Franconian. The former of these,[11] which with its _dat_, _wat_,
_allet_, &c. (cf. above) and its retention of the voiced spirant _b_
(written _v_) represents a kind of transition dialect to Low German,
is itself divided into ([alpha]) Ripuarian or Low Rhenish with Cologne
and Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) as centres, and ([beta]) Moselle
Franconian[12] with Trier (Treves) as principal town. The latter is
distinguished by the fact that in the Middle High German period it
shifts Germanic _-rp-_ and _-rd-_, which are retained in (a), to
_-rf-_ and _-rt-_ (cf. _werfen_, _hirtin_ with _werpen_,
_hirdin_).[13] The Rhenish Franconian dialect is spoken in the Rhenish
palatinate, in the northern part of Baden (Heidelberg), Hesse[14] and
Nassau, and in the German-speaking part of Lorraine. A line drawn from
Falkenberg at the French frontier to Siegen on the Lahn, touching the
Rhine near Boppard, roughly indicates the division between Middle and
Rhenish Franconian.

2. _The Upper German Group._--The Upper German dialects, which played
the most important part in the literature of the early periods, may be
divided into (a) a Bavarian-Austrian group and (b) a High
Franconian-Alemannic group. Of all the German dialects the
Bavarian-Austrian has carried the soundshifting to its furthest
extreme; here only do we find the labial voiced stop _b_ written _p_
in the middle of a word, viz. old Bavarian _kapames_, old Alemannic
_kabames_ ("we gave"); here too, in the 12th century, we find the
first traces of that broadening of _i_, _u_, _iu_ (_u_) to _ei_, _au_,
_eu_, a change which, even at the present day, is still foreign to the
greater part of the Alemannic dialects. Only in Bavarian do we still
find the old pronominal dual forms _es_ and _enk_ (for _ihr_ and
_euch_). Finally, Bavarian forms diminutives in _-el_ and _-erl_
(_Madel_, _Maderl_), while the Franconian-Alemannic forms are _-la_
and _-le_ (_Madle_). On the other hand, the pronunciation of _-s_ as
_-sch_, especially _-st_ as _-scht_ (cf. _Last_, _Haspel_, pronounced
_Lascht_, _Haschpel_), may be mentioned as characteristic of the
Alemannic, just as the _fortis_ pronunciation of initial _t_ is
characteristic of High Franconian, while the other Franconian and
Upper German dialects employ the _lenis_.

The Alemannic dialect which, roughly speaking, is separated from
Bavarian by the Lech and borders on Italian territory in the south and
on French in the west, is subdivided into: (a) Swabian, the dialect of
the kingdom of Wurttemberg and the north-western part of Tirol (cf. H.
Fischer, _Geographie der schwabischen Mundart_, 1895); (b) High
Alemannic (Swiss), including the German dialects of Switzerland, of
the southern part of the Black Forest (the Basel-Breisgau dialect),
and that of Vorarlberg; (c) Low Alemannic, comprising the dialects of
Alsace and part of Baden (to the north of the Feldberg and south of
Rastatt), also, at the present day, the town of Basel. Only Swabian
has taken part in the change of _i_ to _ei_, &c., mentioned above,
while initial Germanic _k_ has been shifted to _ch_ ([chi]) only in
High Alemannic (cf. _chalt_, _chind_, _chorn_, for _kalt_, _kind_,
_korn_). The pronunciation of _u_ as _u_, _u_ (_Hus_ for _Haus_) is
peculiar to Alsatian.

The High Franconian dialects, that is to say, east and south (or
south-Rhenish) Franconian, which are separated broadly speaking by the
river Neckar, comprise the language spoken in a part of Baden, the
dialects of the Main valley from Wurzburg upwards to Bamberg, the
dialect of Nuremberg and probably of the Vogtland (Plauen) and
Egerland. During the older historical period the principal difference
between East and South Franconian consisted in the fact that initial
Germanic _d_ was retained in the latter dialect, while East Franconian
shifted it to _t_. Both, like Bavarian and Alemannic, shift initial
German _p_ to the affricate _pf_.

Finally, the Bavarian-Austrian dialect is spoken throughout the
greater part of the kingdom of Bavaria (i.e. east of the Lech and a
fine drawn from the point where the Lech joins the Danube to the
sources of the rivers Elster and Mulde, this being the East Franconian
border-line), in Austria, western Bohemia, and in the German
linguistic "islands" embedded in Hungary, in Gottschee and the Sette
and Tredici Communi (cf. above).[15]

THE OLD HIGH GERMAN PERIOD

The language spoken during the Old High German period, that is to say,
down to about the year 1050, is remarkable for the fulness and
richness of its vowel-sounds in word-stems as well as in inflections.
Cf. _elilenti_, _Elend_; _luginari_, _Lugner_; _karkari_, _Kerker_;
_menniskono slahta_, _Menschengeschlecht_; _herzono_, _Herzen_ (gen.
pl.); _furisto_, _vorderste_; _hartost_, (_am_) _hartesten_;
_sibunzug_, _siebzig_; _ziohemes_, (_wir_) _ziehen_; _salbota_, (_er_)
_salbte_; _gaworahtos_, (_du_) _wirktest_, &c. Of the consonantal
changes which took place during this period that of the spirant th
(preserved only in English) to d (_werthan_, _werdan_; _theob_,
_deob_) deserves mention. It spread from Upper Germany, where it is
noticeable as early as the 8th century to Middle and finally, in the
11th and 12th centuries, to Low Germany. Further, the initial _h_ in
_hl_, _hn_, _hr_, _hw_ (cf. _hwer_, _wer_; _hreini_, _rein_;
_hlahhan_, _lachen_) and _w_ in _wr_ (_wrecceo_, _Recke_) disappeared,
this change also starting in Upper Germany and spreading slowly north.
The most important vowel-change is the so-called mutation
(_Umlaut_),[16] that is to say, the qualitative change of a vowel
(except _i_) in a stem-syllable, owing to the influence of an _i_ or
_j_ in the following syllable. This process commenced in the north
where it seems to have been already fully developed in Low German as
early as the 8th century. It is to be found, it may be noted, in
Anglo-Saxon, as early as the 6th century. It gradually worked its way
southwards to Middle and Upper Germany where, however, certain
consonants seem to have protected the stem syllable from the influence
of _i_ in a following syllable. Cf., for instance, Modern High German
_drucken_ and _drucken_; _glauben_, _kaufen_, _Haupt_, words which in
Middle German dialects show mutation. Orthographically, however, this
process is, during the first period, only to be seen in the change of
_a_ to _e_; from the 10th century onwards there are, it is true, some
traces of other changes, and vowels like _u_, _o_, _ou_ must have
already been affected, otherwise we could not account for the mutation
of these vowels at a period when the cause of it, the _i_ or _j_, no
longer existed. A no less important change, for it helped to
differentiate High from Low German, was that of Germanic _e_2 (a
closed _e_-sound) and _o_ diphthongs in Old High German, while they
were retained in Old Low German. Cf. O.H.G. _her_, _hear_, _hiar_,
O.L.G. _her_; O.H.G. _fuoz_, O.L.G. _fot_. The final result was that
in the 10th century ie (older forms, _ia_, _ea_) and _uo_ (older _ua_,
_oa_ in Alemannic, _ua_ in South Franconian) had asserted themselves
throughout all the High German dialects. Again while in Old High
German the older diphthongs _ai_ and _au_ were preserved as _ei_ and
_ou_, unless they happened to stand at the end of a word or were
followed by certain consonants (_h_, _w_, _r_ in the one case, and
_h_, _r_, _l_, _n_, _th_, _d_, _t_, _z_, _s_ in the other; cf. _zeh_
from _zihan_, _zoh_ from _ziohan_, _verlos_, &c.), the Old Low German
shows throughout the monophthongs _e_ (in Middle Low German a closed
sound) and _o_ (cf. O.L.G. _sten_, _oga_). These monophthongs are also
to be heard in Rhenish Franconian, the greater part of East Franconian
and the Upper Saxon and Silesian dialects of modern times (cf.
_Stein_: _Steen_ or _Stan_; _laufen_: _lofen_ or _lopen_).

Of the dialects enumerated above, Bavarian and Alemannic, High and
Rhenish Franconian as well as Old Saxon are more or less represented
in the literature of the first period. But this literature, the chief
monuments of which are Otfrid's _Evangelienbuch_ (in South
Franconian), the Old Saxon _Heliand_ (a life of Christ in alliterative
verse), the translation of Tatian's _Gospel Harmony_ (East Franconian)
and that of a theological tract by Bishop Isidore of Seville and of
parts of the Bible (Rhenish Franconian), is almost exclusively
theological and didactic in character. One is consequently inclined to
attach more value to the scanty remains of the _Hildebrandslied_ and
some interesting and ancient charms. The didactic spirit again
pervades the translations and commentaries of Notker of St Gall in the
early part of the 11th century, as well as a paraphrase of the _Song
of Songs_ by an abbot Williram of Ebersberg a little later. Latin,
however, reigned supreme throughout this period, it being the language
of the charters, the lawbooks (there is nothing in Germany to compare
with the laws of the Anglo-Saxons), of science, medicine, and even
poetry. It is thus needless to say that there was no recognized
literary language (_Schriftsprache_) during this period, nor even any
attempt to form one; at most, we might speak of schools in the large
monasteries, such as Reichenau, St Gall, Fulda, which contributed to
the spread and acceptance of certain orthographical rules.

THE MIDDLE HIGH GERMAN PERIOD

The following are the chief changes in sounds and forms which mark the
development of the language in the Middle High German period. The
orthography of the MSS. reveals a much more extensive employment of
mutation (_Umlaut_) than was the case in the first period; we find,
for instance, as the mutation of _o_, _o_, of _o_, _oe_, _of u_, _iu_
(_u_), of _uo_, _ue_, of _ou_, _ou_, and _eu_ (cf. _holer_, _boese_,
_hiuser_, _guete_, _boume_), although many scribes, and more
especially those of Middle and Low German districts, have no special
signs for the mutation of _u_, _u_, and _o_. Of special interest is
the so-called "later (or weaker) mutation" (_jungerer oder
schwacherer Umlaut_) of _a_ to a very open _e_ sound, which is often
written _a_. Cf. _mahte_ (O.H.G. _mahti_), _magede_ (O.H.G. _magadi_).
The earlier mutation of this sound produced an _e_(_e_), a closed
sound (i.e. nearer _i_). Cf. _geste_ (O.H.G. _gesti_).

The various Old High German vowels in unstressed syllables were either
weakened to an indifferent _e_ sound (_geben_, O.H.G. _geban_; _bote_,
O.H.G. _boto_; _sige_, O.H.G. _sigu_) or disappeared altogether. The
latter phenomenon is to be observed after _l_ and _r_, and partly
after _n_ and _m_ (cf. _ar(e)_, O.H.G. _aro_; _zal_, O.H.G. _zala_;
_wundern_, O.H.G. _wuntaron_, &c.); but it by no means took place
everywhere in the same degree and at the same time. It has been
already noted that the Alemannic dialect (as well as the archaic poets
of the German national epic) retained at least the long unstressed
vowels until as late as the 14th century (_gemarterot_, _gekriuzegot_,
&c., and Low and Middle German preserved the weakened _e_ sound in
many cases where Upper German dropped it. In this period the
beginnings are also to be seen in Low and Middle German (Heinrich von
Veldeke shows the first traces of it) of a process which became of
great importance for the formation of the Modern German literary
language. This is the lengthening of originally short vowels in open
syllables,[17] for example, in Modern High German _Tages_, _Weges_,
_lobe_ (Middle High German _tages_, _weges_, _lobe_). In Austria, on
the other hand, there began as far back as the first half of the 12th
century another movement of equal importance for Modern High German,
namely, the conversion of the long vowels, _i_, _u_, _u_, into _ei_
(_ou_), _au_, _eu_ (_au_).[18] It is, therefore, in MSS. written in
the south-east that we find forms like _zeit_, _lauter_ (_loter_),
_heute_, &c., for the first time. With the exception of Low German and
Alemannic--Swabian, however, follows in this respect the majority--all
the German dialects participated in this change between the 14th and
16th centuries, although not all to the same degree. The change was
perhaps assisted by the influence of the literary language which had
recognized the new sounds. In England the same process has led to the
modern pronunciation of _time_, _house_, &c., and in Holland to that
of _tijd_, _huis_, &c. F. Wrede (_Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum_
xxxix. 257 ff.) has suggested that the explanation of the change is to
be sought in the apocope and syncope of the final _e_, and the greater
stress which was in consequence put on the stem-syllable. The tendency
to a change in the opposite direction, namely, the narrowing of
diphthongs to monophthongs, is to be noticed in Middle German
dialects, i.e. in dialects which resisted the apocope of the final
_e_, where _ie_, _uo_, _ue_ become _i_, _u_, _u_; thus we have for
_Brief_, _brif_, for _huon_, _hun_, for _brueder_, _bruder_, and this
too was taken over into the Modern High German literary language.[19]

No consonantal change was so widespread during this period as that of
initial _s_ to _sch_ before _l_, _n_, _m_, _w_, _p_ and _t_. Cf.
_slingen_, _schlingen_; _swer_ (_e_) _n_, _schworen_, &c. The forms
_scht_- and _schp_- are often to be met with in Alemannic MSS., but
they were discarded again, although modern German recognizes the
pronunciation _schp_, _scht_.[20] With regard to changes affecting the
inflections of verbs and nouns, it must suffice here to point out that
the weakening or disappearance of vowels in unstressed syllables
necessarily affected the characteristic endings of the older language;
groups of verbs and substantives which in Old High German were
distinct now become confused. This is best seen in the case of the
weak verbs, where the three Old High German classes (cf. _nerien_,
_salbon_, _dagen_) were fused into one. Similarly in the declensions
we find an increasing tendency of certain forms to influence
substantives belonging to other classes; there is, for instance, an
increase in the number of neuter nouns taking _-er_ (_-ir_) in the
plural, and of those which show mutation in the plural on the model of
the _i-_ stems (O.H.G. _gast_, pl. _gesti_; cf. forms like _ban_,
_benne_; _hals_, _helse_; _wald_, _welde_). Of changes in syntax the
gradual decay in the use of the genitive case dependent on a noun or
governed by a verb (cf. constructions like _eine brunne rotes goldes_,
or _des todes wunschen_) towards the end of the period, and also the
disappearance of the Old High German sequence of tenses ought at least
to be mentioned.

In the Middle High German period, the first classical period of German
poetry, the German language made great advances as a vehicle of
literary expression; its power of expression was increased and it
acquired a beauty of style hitherto unknown. This was the period of
the _Minnesang_ and the great popular and court epics, of Walther von
der Vogelweide, Hartmann von Aue, Wolfram von Eschenbach and Gottfried
von Strassburg; it was a period when literature enjoyed the fostering
care of the courts and the nobility. At the same time German prose
celebrated its first triumphs in the sermons of Berthold von
Regensburg, and in the mystic writings and sermons of Meister Eckhart,
Tauler and others. History (Eike von Repkow's _Weltchronik_) and law
(_Sachsenspiegel_, _Schwabenspiegel_) no longer despised the
vernacular, and from about the middle of the 13th century German
becomes, in an ever-increasing percentage, the language of deeds and
charters.

It has been a much debated question how far Germany in Middle High
German times possessed or aspired to possess a _Schriftsprache_ or
literary language.[21] About the year 1200 there was undoubtedly a
marked tendency towards a unification of the literary language on the
part of the more careful poets like Walther von der Vogelweide,
Hartmann von Aue and Gottfried von Strassburg; they avoid, more
particularly in their rhymes, dialectic peculiarities, such as the
Bavarian dual forms _es_ and _enk_, or the long vowels in unstressed
syllables, retained in Alemannic, and they do not make use of archaic
words or forms. We have thus a right to speak, if not of a Middle High
German literary language in the widest sense of the word, at least of
a Middle High German _Dichtersprache_ or poetic language, on an
Alemannic-Franconian basis. Whether, or in how far, this may have
affected the ordinary speech of the nobility or courts, is a matter of
conjecture; but it had an undeniable influence on Middle and Low
German poets, who endeavoured at least to use High German forms in
their rhymes. Attempts were also made in Low German districts, though
at a later stage of this period, to unify the dialects and raise them
to the level of an accepted literary language. It will be shown later
why these attempts were unsuccessful. Unfortunately, however, the
efforts of the High German poets to form a uniform language were also
shortlived; by the end of the 13th century the _Dichtersprache_ had
disappeared, and the dialects again reigned supreme.

MODERN HIGH GERMAN

Although the Middle High German period had thus not succeeded in
effecting any permanent advance in the direction of a uniform literary
language, the desire for a certain degree of uniformity was never
again entirely lost. At the close of the 13th century literature had
passed from the hands of the nobility to those of the middle classes
of the towns; the number of writers who used the German tongue rapidly
increased; later the invention of printing, the increased efficiency
of the schools, and above all the religious movement of the
Reformation, contributed to awakening the desire of being understood
by those who stood outside the dialectic community of the individual.
A single authoritative form of writing and spelling was felt on all
sides to be particularly necessary. This was found in the language
used officially by the various chanceries (_Kanzleien_), and more
especially the imperial chancery. Since the days of Charles IV.
(1347-1378) the latter had striven after a certain uniform language in
the documents it issued, and by the time of Maximilian I. (1493-1519)
all its official documents were characterized by pretty much the same
phonology, forms and vocabulary, in whatever part of Germany they
originated. And under Maximilian's successor, Charles V., the
conditions remained pretty much the same. The fact that the seat of
the imperial chancery had for a long time been in Prague, led to a
mingling of Upper and Middle German sounds and inflections; but when
the crown came with Frederick III. (1440-1493) to the Habsburgs, the
Upper German elements were considerably increased. The chancery of the
Saxon electorate, whose territory was exclusively Middle German, had
to some extent, under the influence of the imperial chancery, allowed
Upper German characteristics to influence its official language. This
is clearly marked in the second half of the 15th century, and about
the year 1500 there was no essential difference between the languages
of the two chanceries. Thuringia, Silesia and Brandenburg soon
followed suit, and even Low German could not ultimately resist the
accepted High German notation (_o_, _o_, _u_, _u_, _ou_, _ie_, &c.).
We have here very favourable conditions for the creation of a uniform
literary language, and, as has already been said, the tendency to
follow these authorities is clearly marked.

In the midst of this development arose the imposing figure of Luther,
who, although by no means the originator of a common High German
speech, helped very materially to establish it. He deliberately chose
(cf. the often quoted passage in his _Tischreden_, ch. 69) the
language of the Saxon chancery as the vehicle of his Bible translation
and subsequently of his own writings. The differences between Luther's
usage and that of the chancery, in phonology and inflection, are
small; still he shows, in his writings subsequent to 1524, a somewhat
more pronounced tendency towards Middle German. But it is noteworthy
that he, like the chancery, retained the old vowel-change in the
singular and plural of the preterite of the strong verbs (i.e.
_steig_, _stigen_; _starb_, _sturben_), although before Luther's time
the uniformity of the modern preterite had already begun to show
itself here and there. The adoption of the language of the chancery
gave rise to the mixed character of sounds and forms which is still a
feature of the literary language of Germany. Thus the use of the
monophthongs _i_, _u_, and _u_, instead of the old diphthongs _ie_,
_uo_ and _ue_, comes from Middle Germany; the forms of the words and
the gender of the nouns follow Middle rather than Upper German usage,
whereas, on the other hand, the consonantal system (_p_ to _pf_; _d_
to _t_) betrays in its main features its Upper German
(Bavarian-Austrian) origin.

The language of Luther no doubt shows greater originality in its style
and vocabulary (cf. its influence on Goethe and the writers of the
_Sturm und Drang_), for in this respect the chancery could obviously
afford him but scanty help. His vocabulary is drawn to a great extent
from his own native Middle German dialect, and the fact that, since
the 14th century, Middle German literature (cf. for instance, the
writings of the German mystics, at the time of and subsequent to
Eckhart) had exercised a strong influence over Upper Germany, stood
him in good stead. Luther is, therefore, strictly speaking, not the
father of the modern German literary language, but he forms the most
important link in a chain of development which began long before him,
and did not reach its final stage until long after him. To infer that
Luther's language made any rapid conquest of Germany would not be
correct. It was, of course, immediately acceptable to the eastern part
of the Middle German district (Thuringia and Silesia), and it did not
find any great difficulty in penetrating into Low Germany, at least
into the towns and districts lying to the east of the Saale and Elbe
(Magdeburg, Hamburg). One may say that about the middle of the 16th
century Luther's High German was the language of the chanceries, about
1600 the language of the pulpit (the last Bible in Low German was
printed at Goslar in 1621) and the printing presses. Thus the
aspirations of Low Germany to have a literary language of its own were
at an early stage crushed. Protestant Switzerland, on the other hand,
resisted the "uncommon new German" until well into the 17th century.
It was also natural that the Catholic Lower Rhine (Cologne) and
Catholic South Germany held out against it, for to adopt the language
of the reformer would have seemed tantamount to offering a helping
hand to Protestant ideas. At the same time, geographical and political
conditions, as well as the pronounced character of the Upper German
dialects, formed an important obstacle to a speedy unification. South
German grammarians of the 16th century, such as Laurentius Albertus,
raise a warning voice against those who, although far distant from the
proper use of words and the true pronunciation, venture to teach _nos
puriores Germanos_, namely, the Upper Germans.

In 1593 J. Helber, a Swiss schoolmaster and notary, spoke of three
separate dialects as being in use by the printing presses:[22] (1)
_Mitteldeutsch_ (the language of the printers in Leipzig, Erfurt,
Nuremberg, Wurzburg, Frankfort, Mainz, Spires, Strassburg and Cologne;
at the last mentioned place in the event of their attempting to print
_Ober-Teutsch_); (2) _Donauisch_ (the printers' language in South
Germany, but limited to Bavaria and Swabia proper--here more
particularly the Augsburg idiom, which was considered to be
particularly _zierlich_);[23] (3) _Hochst Reinisch_, which corresponds
to Swiss German. Thus in the 16th century Germany was still far from
real unity in its language; but to judge from the number and the
geographical position of the towns which printed in _Mitteldeutsch_ it
is pretty clear which idiom would ultimately predominate. During the
17th century men like M. Opitz (_Buch von der deutschen Poeterey_) and
J.G. Schottelius (_Teutsche Sprachkunst_, 1641, and _Von der teutschen
Sprachkunst_, 1663), together with linguistic societies like the
_Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft_ and the Nuremberg _Pegnitzorden_, did a
great deal to purify the German language from foreign (especially
French) elements; they insisted on the claims of the vernacular to a
place beside and even above Latin (in 1687 Christian Thomasius held
for the first time lectures in the German language at the university
of Leipzig), and they established a firm grammatical basis for
Luther's common language, which especially in the hymnals had become
modernized and more uniform. About the middle of the 17th century the
disparity between the vowels of the singular and plural of the
preterite of the strong verbs practically ceases; under East Middle
German influence the final _e_ is restored to words like _Knabe_,
_Jude_, _Pfaffe_, which in South German had been _Knab_, &c.; the
mixed declension (_Ehre_, _Ehren_; _Schmerz_, _Schmerzen_) was
established, and the plural in -_er_ was extended to some masculine
nouns (_Wald_, _Walder_);[24] the use of the mutated sound has now
become the rule as a plural sign (Vater, Baume). How difficult, even
in the first half of the 18th century, it was for a Swiss to write the
literary language which Luther had established is to be seen from the
often quoted words of Haller (1708-1777): "I am a Swiss, the German
language is strange to me, and its choice of words was almost unknown
to me." The Catholic south clung firmly to its own literary language,
based on the idiom of the imperial chancery, which was still an
influential force in the 17th century or on local dialects. This is
apparent in the writings of Abraham a Sancta Clara,[25] who died in
1709, or in the attacks of the Benedictine monk, Augustin Dornbluth,
on the _Meissner Schriftsprache_ in 1755.

In the 18th century, to which these names have introduced us, the
grammatical writings of J.C. Gottsched (_Deutsche Sprachkunst_, 1748)
and J.C. Adelung (_Grammatisch-kritisches Worterbuch der hochdeutschen
Mundart_, 1774-1786) exercised a decisive and far-reaching influence.
Gottsched took as his basis the spoken language (_Umgangssprache_) of
the educated classes of Upper Saxony (Meissen), which at this time
approximated as nearly as possible to the literary language. His
_Grammar_ did enormous services to the cause of unification,
ultimately winning over the resisting south; but he carried his purism
to pedantic lengths, he would tolerate no archaic or dialectical
words, no unusual forms or constructions, and consequently made the
language unsuited for poetry. Meanwhile an interest in Old German
literature was being awakened by Bodmer; Herder set forth better ideas
on the nature of language, and insisted on the value of native idioms;
and the _Sturm und Drang_ led by Goethe encouraged all individualistic
tendencies. All this gave rise to a movement counter to Gottsched's
absolutism, which resulted in the revival of many obsolete German
words and forms, these being drawn partly from Luther's Bible
translation (cf. V. Hehn, "Goethe und die Sprache der Bibel," in the
_Goethe-Jahrbuch_, viii. p. 187 ff.), partly from the older language
and partly from the vocabulary peculiar to different social ranks and
trades.[26] The latter is still a source of linguistic innovations.
German literary style underwent a similar rejuvenation, for we are on
the threshold of the second classical period of German literature. It
had strengthened Gottsched's hand as a linguistic reformer that the
earlier leaders of German literature, such as Gellert, Klopstock and
Lessing, were Middle Germans; now Wieland's influence, which was
particularly strong in South Germany, helped materially towards the
establishment of one accepted literary language throughout all
German-speaking countries; and the movement reaches its culmination
with Goethe and Schiller. At the same time this unification did not
imply the creation of an unalterable standard; for, just as the
language of Opitz and Schottelius differed from that of Luther,
so--although naturally in a lesser degree--the literary language of
our day differs from that of the classic writers of the 18th century.
Local peculiarities are still to be met with, as is to be seen in the
modern German literature that emanates from Switzerland or Austria.

But this unity, imperfect as it is, is limited to the literary
language. The differences are much more sharply accentuated in the
_Umgangssprache_,[27] whereby we understand the language as it is
spoken by educated people throughout Germany; this is not only the
case with regard to pronunciation, although it is naturally most
noticeable here, but also with regard to the choice of words and the
construction of sentences. Compared with the times of Goethe and
Schiller a certain advance towards unification has undoubtedly been
made, but the differences between north and south are still very
great. This is particularly noticeable in the pronunciation of
_r_--either the uvular _r_ or the _r_ produced by the tip of the
tongue; of the voiced and voiceless stops, _b_, _p_, _d_, _t_, _g_ and
_k_; of the _s_ sounds; of the diphthongs; of the long vowels _e_ and
_oe_, &c. (cf. W. Vietor, _German Pronunciation_, 2nd ed., 1890). The
question as to whether a unified pronunciation (_Einheitaussprache_)
is desirable or even possible has occupied the attention of academies,
scholars and the educated public during recent years, and in 1898 a
commission made up of scholars and theatre directors drew up a scheme
of pronunciation for use in the royal theatres of Prussia.[28] This
scheme has since been recommended to all German theatres by the German
_Buhnenverein_. Desirable as such a uniform pronunciation is for the
national theatre, it is a much debated question how far it should be
adopted in the ordinary speech of everyday life. Some scholars, such
as W. Braune, declared themselves strongly in favour of its
adoption;[29] Braune's argument being that the system of modern
pronunciation is based on the spelling, not on the sounds produced in
speaking. The latter, he holds, is only responsible for the
pronunciation of _-chs-_ as _-ks-_ in _wachsen_, _Ochse_, &c., or for
that of _sp-_ and _st-_ in _spielen_, _stehen_, &c. Other scholars,
again, such as K. Luick and O. Brenner, warn against any such attempts
to create a living language on an artificial basis;[30] the
_Buhnendeutsch_ or "stage-German" they regard as little more than an
abstract ideal. Thus the decision must be left to time.

AUTHORITIES.--_General Literature_: J. Grimm, _Geschichte der
deutschen Sprache_ (Leipzig, 1848; 4th ed., 1880); W. Scherer, _Zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_ (Berlin, 1868; 2nd ed., 1878); E.
Forstemann, _Geschichte des deutschen Sprachstammes_ (Nordhausen,
1874-1875); O. Behaghel, _Die deutsche Sprache_ (Leipzig, 1886; 2nd
ed., 1902); the same, "Geschichte der deutschen Sprache," in Paul's
_Grundriss der germanischen Philologie_ (2nd ed.), i. pp. 650 ff.; O.
Weise, _Unsere deutsche Sprache, ihr Werden und ihr Wesen_ (Leipzig,
1898); K. von Raumer, _Geschichte der germanischen Philologie_
(Munich, 1870); J. Grimm, _Deutsche Grammatik_ (4 vols., vols. i.-iii.
in new edition, 1870-1890); Dieter, _Laut- und Formenlehre der
altgermanischen Dialekte_ (2 vols., Leipzig, 1898-1900); F. Kauffmann,
_Deutsche Grammatik_ (2nd ed., 1895); W. Wilmanns, _Deutsche
Grammatik_, so far, vols, i., ii. and iii., 1 (Strassburg, 1893-1906,
vol. i., 2nd ed., 1897); O. Brenner, _Grundzuge der geschichtlichen
Grammatik der deutschen Sprache_ (Munich, 1896); H. Lichtenberger,
_Histoire de la langue allemande_ (Paris, 1895).

_Old and Middle High German Period_: W. Braune, _Althochdeutsche
Grammatik_ (2nd ed., Halle, 1891); the same, _Abriss der
althochdeutschen Grammatik_ (3rd ed., 1900); F. Holthausen,
_Altsachsisches Elementarbuch_ (Heidelberg, 1899); W. Schluter,
_Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altsachsichen Sprache_, i.
(Gottingen, 1892); O. Schade, _Altdeutsches Worterbuch_ (2nd ed.,
Halle, 1872-1882); G.E. Graff, _Althochdeutscher Sprachschatz_ (6
vols., Berlin, 1834-1842) (Index by Massmann, 1846); E. Steinmeyer and
E. Sievers, _Althochdeutsche Glossen_ (4 vols., Berlin, 1879-1898);
J.A. Schmeller, _Glossarium Saxonicum_ (Munich, 1840); K. Weinhold,
_Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik_ (3rd ed., Paderborn, 1892); H. Paul,
_Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik_ (5th ed., Halle, 1900); V. Michels,
_Mittelhochdeutsches Elementarbuch_ (Heidelberg, 1900); O. Brenner,
_Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik_ (3rd ed., Munich, 1894); K. Zwierzina,
"Mittelhochdeutsche Studien," in _Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum_,
vols. xliv. and xlv.; A. Lubben, _Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik_
(Leipzig, 1882); W. Muller and F. Zarncke, _Mittelhochdeutsches
Worterbuch_ (4 vols., Leipzig, 1854-1866); M. Lexer,
_Mittelhochdeutsches Handworterbuch_ (3 vols., 1872-1878); the same,
_Mittelhochdeutsches Taschenworterbuch_ (8th ed., 1906); K. Schiller
and A. Lubben, _Mittelniederdeutsches Worterbuch_ (6 vols., Bremen,
1875-1881); A. Lubben, _Mittelniederdeutsches Handworterbuch_ (Norden,
1888); F. Seiler, _Die Entwicklung der deutsch. Kultur im Spiegel des
deutschen Lehnworts_ (Halle, i., 1895, 2nd ed., 1905, ii., 1900).

_Modern High German Period_: E. Wulcker, "Die Entstehung der
kursachsischen Kanzleisprache" (in the _Zeitschrift des Vereins fur
kursachsische Geschichte_, ix. p. 349); the same, "Luthers Stellung
zur kursachsischen Kanzleisprache" (in _Germania_, xxviii. pp. 191
ff.); P. Pietsch, _Martin Luther und die hochdeutsche Schriftsprache_
(Breslau, 1883); K. Burdach, _Die Einigung der neuhochdeutschen
Schriftsprache_, (1883); E. Opitz, _Die Sprache Luthers_ (Halle,
1869); J. Luther, _Die Sprache Luthers in der Septemberbibel_ (Halle,
1887); F. Kluge, _Von Luther bis Lessing_ (Strassburg, 1888) (cf. E.
Schroder's review in the _Gottinger gelehrte Anzeiger_, 1888, 249); H.
Ruckert, _Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache bis zur Mitte
des 18. Jahrhunderts_ (1875): J. Kehrein, _Grammatik der deutschen
Sprache des 15. bis 17. Jahrhunderts_ (Leipzig, 2nd ed., 1863); K. von
Bahder, _Grundlagen des neuhochdeutschen Lautsystems_ (Strassburg,
1890); R. Meyer, _Einfuhrung in das altere Neuhochdeutsche_ (Leipzig,
1894); W. Scheel, _Beitrage zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen
Gemeinsprache in Koln_ (Marburg, 1892); R. Brandstetter, _Die
Rezeption der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache in Stadt und Landschaft
Luzern_ (1892); K. Burdach, "Zur Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen
Schriftsprache" (_Forschungen zur deutschen Philologie_, 1894); the
same, "Die Sprache des jungen Goethe" (_Verhandlungen der Dessauer
Philologenversammlung_, 1884, p. 164 ff.); F. Kasch, _Die Sprache des
jungen Schiller_ (Dissertation, 1900); F. Kluge, "Uber die Entstehung
unserer Schriftsprache" (Beihefte zur _Zeitschrift des allgemeinen
Sprachvereins_, Heft 6, 1894); A. Waag, _Bedeutungsentwickelung
unseres Wortschatzes_ (Lahr, 1901).

Mention must also be made of the work of the German commission of the
Royal Prussian Academy, which in 1904 drew up plans for making an
inventory of all German literary MSS. dating from before the year 1600
and for the publication of Middle High German and early Modern High
German texts. This undertaking, which has made considerable progress,
provides rich material for the study of the somewhat neglected period
between the 14th and 16th centuries; at the same time it provides a
basis on which a monumental history of Modern High German may be built
up, as well as for a _Thesaurus linguae germanicae_. (R. Pr.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] K. Mullenhoff and W. Scherer, _Denkmaler deutscher Poesie und
Prosa_, 3rd ed., by E. Steinmeyer, 1892, No. lxvii.

[2] For a detailed description of the boundary line cf. O. Behaghel's
article in Paul's _Grundriss_, 2nd ed., pp. 652-657, where there is
also a map, and a very full bibliography relative to the changes in
the boundary.

[3] Cf. J. Grimm, _Deutsche Grammatik_, 3rd ed., i. p. 13; F. Kluge,
_Etymologisches Worterbuch_, 6th ed., pp. 75 ff.; K. Luick, "Zur
Geschichte des Wortes 'deutsch,'" in _Anzeiger fur deutsches
Altertum_, xv., pp. 135, 248; H. Fischer, "Theotiscus, Deutsch," in
Paul and Braune's _Beitrage_, xviii. p. 203; H. Paul, _Deutsches
Worterbuch_ (1897), p. 93.

[4] Cf. P. Kretschmer, _Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen
Sprache_ (Gottingen, 1896), who holds the mingling of Celtic and
Germanic elements in southern and south-western Germany responsible
for the change. It might also be mentioned here that H. Meyer
(_Zeitschrift f. deut. Altertum_, xlv. pp. 101 ff.) endeavours to
explain the first soundshifting by the change of abode of the
Germanic tribes from the lowlands to the highlands of the Carpathian
Mountains.

[5] Of writers who have made extensive use of dialects, it must
suffice to mention here the names of J.H. Voss, Hebel, Klaus Groth,
Fritz Reuter, Usteri, G.D. Arnold, Holtei, Castelli, J.G. Seidl and
Anzengruber, and in our own days G. Hauptmann.

[6] Cf. F. Staub and L. Tobler, _Schweizerisches Idiotikon_ (1881
ff.); E. Martin and F. Lienhart, _Worterbuch der elsassischen
Mundarten_ (Strassburg, 1899 ff.); H. Fischer, _Schwabisches
Worterbuch_ (Tubingen, 1901 ff.). Earlier works, which are already
completed, are J.A. Schmeller, _Bayrisches Worterbuch_ (2nd ed., 2
vols., Munich, 1872-1877); J.B. Schopf, _Tiroler Idiotikon_
(Innsbruck, 1886); M. Lexer, _Karntisches Worterbuch_ (1862); H.
Gradl, _Egerlander Worterbuch_, i. (Eger, 1883); A.F.C. Vilmar,
_Idiotikon von Kurhessen_ (Marburg, 1883) (with supplements by H. von
Pfister); W. Crecelius, _Oberhessisches Worterbuch_ (Darmstadt,
1890-1898). Professor J. Franck is responsible for a _Rheinisches
Worterbuch_ for the Prussian Academy.